ZBA reviews area variance to locate exterior refrigeration near shared property line at former Jameson Business College site

The Jamestown Zoning Board of Appeals considered an area variance request to reduce a required rear setback from 10 feet to 5 feet to permit exterior refrigeration units as part of renovations at the former Jameson Business College site, now associated with the Saint Susan Center.

Project representatives described two external refrigeration/cooler units to be located at the rear of the building; one unit would be within 5 feet of the shared property line and the other set farther back. The applicants said the units are required to increase kitchen capacity and that the initial proposal calls for standard exterior coolers for budget reasons; the team said they were open to camouflaging by paint or landscaping if the board requested it.

A detailed letter from Gina Aufel, president of Clayman Properties Inc., and owner of the neighboring property, was read into the record and submitted to the clerk. The letter stated objections: it said the neighbor had permitted a temporary shed when the prior tenant occupied the adjacent property but that acceptance of that shed was not meant to waive setback rules for future owners; it asked for detailed specifications about the refrigeration dimensions, height, noise levels, vibrations and emissions; and it stated the refrigeration units as proposed would be “much less than 5 feet” from their property line and could be inches away from their building. The neighbor asked the board to deny the variance or postpone action until full specifications and alternatives were provided.

Board members asked for clarification about the distance from the property line and were told by the applicant that one of the coolers would be 5 feet from the property line and that the other cooler was farther away. The board also discussed noise levels and whether the compressors would be burdensome; the applicant said the compressors are “not loud by any means” and that they would likely be quieter than existing commercial kitchen equipment and area traffic. The applicant said one existing shed in the location would be removed.

A motion to approve the 5‑foot setback area variance was made by a board member who said the application addressed the variance criteria; a second was recorded. A board member requested the developer work with staff (Mister Scalise) on camouflaging the units through paint or landscaping; the mover preferred not to make camouflaging a formal condition but asked that the developer be aware of the concern. The transcript records discussion in favor of approval and the mover’s comments that the area is commercial in character and impacts would be limited.

The provided excerpt does not include a complete roll call or final vote tally; therefore a final recorded outcome is not available in the transcript excerpt provided here.